[Sisco]

Thought I'd give poster making a try. Not as professional as Olegs and it's not gun related but....

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=465594

[Standing Wolf]

I've seen better illustration and typography, but that's really very good! Well done!

[Sisco]

Yeah, not real professional. It's a scan of a MS Word document.
No Photoshop on my machine.

[P95Carry]

Good message ... I endorse the sentiment. Sure .. could be better but ... not bad at all .......

Makes me think ... maybe I can do similar .... hmmm .......

[jimpeel]

Get Oleg on this one. Anyone live near Arlington that can get him a good clear shot?

The only problem I see is that the stone is of a specific person that one could find oneself in Dutch with the family.

[CleverNickname]

The only problem I see is that the stone is of a specific person that one could find oneself in Dutch with the family.

I agree. A picture like this (http://www.afnorth.nato.int/northern_star/ns_images_2002/July/Cemetary%2001.jpg) would work better, I think.

[BowStreetRunner]

mmmmmm Runner likey

reminds me of the broooha back in MO where I used to live.....two state troopers were killed, and two little crosses placed in front of the state patrol barracks
someone (ACLU?) sued to have them removed
said it made the state building look like a church
never even noticed the crosses until i read the article about the whole stink in the paper
BSR

[seeker_two]

reminds me of the broooha back in MO where I used to live.....two state troopers were killed, and two little crosses placed in front of the state patrol barracks
someone (ACLU?) sued to have them removed


Wonder how many traffic tickets the ACLU lawyers got that year?...:evil:

[Leatherneck]

Sisco: Good thought. I agree with the sentiments 100%. But I like CleverNickname's pic better. Who doesn't find a picture of Arlington immediately recognizable.

Now....if you had a similar pic with the Iwo Jima Memorial in the background :D

TC
TFL Survivor

[Futo Inu]

Ya know, I just have to chime in with a couple of important points about the 1A argument. This is not gun-related (so it's off-topic - I apologize in advance), but the recent thread on the Alabama situation went on for pages, and I didn't get in there. But this point steams me to no end, and much like the 2A debate in the media, even the intelligent media figures don't even know what the 1A actually SAYS - read the gawddang thing precisely - do ya mind!?!?!

Lookit, the 1st Amendment does NOT say:

"Separation of chuch and state", nor
"The government shall not ESTABLISH a religion" nor
anything of the sort.

Whip out your pocket Const.

The so-named "establishment clause" in question says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". (RESPECTING an establishment, not "establishing a religion" - important difference)

The two important phrases in that sentence are "Congress shall make no law" and "respecting an establishment of religion".

The first part/point is solidly in the favor of the religious side of these related argments, and thus may seem a little odd coming from someone such as myself who is atheist, actually, agnostic. OK... "Congress shall make no law [....]" - this does not say that there cannot be religious symbols on government property - it says "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW" - what part of "make no law" don't these judges get??? Putting the 10 commandments in the courthouse is not "making a law". Yes, I understand that the amendment now applies to the states via the incorporation doctrine - fine, great. And yes, I undertand there are in fact, under SCOTUS case law, rules that govern the SCOTUS-interpreted doctrine of "separation of chuch and state". And I personally am EXTRAORDINARILY in favor of protection of the separation of chuch and state in general. BUT, "congress [legislatures] shall make no law" means this and only this: The act of the govermental actor in question is not violative of the 1A, IMO, unless it's an act that GOVERNS the behavior of the people, by forcing me for example, an agnostic, to do something religious, or otherwise favors one religion over another in a way that has an actual, practical effect on me (and others). The 10 commandments in the courtroom (or Jesus in the nativity scene, or whathaveyou), do NOT force ME to do anything! I can look away, and they don't affect my rights (yes, seeing stuff like this does in fact bother me, but tough noogies). They're NOT part of any legislative or judicial or administrative code, which comprises our laws, so they cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination to be a part of a "[legislature] make[ing] a law [....]" !!!! Unless and until it is demonstrated, at least, that the symbol in question is somehow affecting the legislation issued by the .gov, or its interpretation by the courts.

If the hardcore atheists don't like this fact, then they should either (a) go amend the Constitution, or (b) Have the Congress or state legislatures pass a LAW which in fact prohibits any religious symbol on .gov property (you see, such a law would NOT be violative of either free exercise or establishment, IMO, and would obviously in fact be in keeping with the establishment clause - though you of course might open a can of worms as to whether it arguably violates the free exercise clause - but fine, that puts the argument where it should be - the free exercise clause may or may not be violated by a law that forbids symbols, and the courts can and should decide that - BUT it's absurd to say that symbols ipso facto violate the establishment clause of the Const.), or (c) go pack sand!!! (again, this is me speaking to the atheists that think the symbols are unconstitutional). Just as I say to the anti-gunners, go amend the damn 2A if you don't like it! Just don't rely on the the courts to do your will, contrary to the Const., claiming a bogus Const'al argument. :barf: And, to the extent that the SCOTUS and other federal courts disagree with me, then they're just wrong. :) Just like the 9th circuit is flat wrong on the 2A. This point really chaps my hide, just like the 2A being wrongly interpreted chaps my hide. I understand when laymen who haven't been to law school get it wrong, but when judges agree with them, :fire:

Now, on to the second part and point of mine: "respecting an establishment of religion". This part of the establishment clause is actually more in favor of the people supporting separation of church and state, and against those who would like to mix in their religion in .gov, because, contrary to how it's often mis-quoted and mis-understood, a plain reading of it indicates that to be violative of this clause of the 1A, the law in question does not have to rise to the level of being a step towards "EstablishING a religion" inside the goverment; rather, to be violative, the law need only "respect an establishment" of religion. So this is indeed a lower threshhold, and supports the idea of separtion of church and state in a more pervasive manner. The law, to be violative, needn't do anything more or less than "respect an establishment". So WTH does this mean? Well, it means that, in reference to religions ALREADY established ("establishment"s of religion), the .gov shall not favor, essentially, any one religion type/sect/etc. over another. The idea is that no religion shall be favored, and therefore no particular religion shall be discriminated against. Now while it IS true that the FFs probably meant to say ONLY those religions AMONG the various Protestant religions at the time, and they probably did NOT envision non-Protestant religions, and almost certainly did not envision non-CHRISTIAN religions (they may have envisioned Catholics), it does not matter, since they WORDS they chose to use, and the SCOTUS as they've interpreted the 1A, have extended the protection to all religions, be they Buddhist, or Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever, and I agree with that. The established caselaw says that words are given their plain meaning, and "religion" as defined at that time, did not necessarily exclude other religions potentially not even contemplated, but which did exist then, such as Buddhism or Catholicism. But a law would not have to "establish a religion" to be violative, ONLY help, or favor, or give money to (excluding others) one religion, or conversely, discriminate against another (thus implicitly favoring the others not discriminated against).

However, as mentioned above, it must be a *LAW*, not a *SYMBOL* in .gov building (or a symbol on currency, or a phrase in the pledge of allegience, or whatever), to violate the 1A, unless and until there is evidence in any particular case, that they symbol is somehow INFLUENCING the law or its interpretation / administration! My .02.

[cuchulainn]

Putting the 10 commandments in the courthouse is not "making a law". Futo,

In most cases, your assertion is true, and I disagree with many attempts to remove religious symbolism.

However, in the Alabama case, you are wrong. It was law subject to constitutional scrutiny.

1) The 14th did not limit itself to state legislatures, but to the whole of state goverments.

2) "Law" did not mean simply "statutes" to the founders. They would have understood the term more-broadly as Blackstone understood it: acts of the sovereign state to command what is good or prohibit what is wrong.

3) Moore did not simply place the monument there. He invoked his official powers as the authority to take action. He acted in his official capacity as an agent of the sovereign state . (See his dedication speech here: http://www.morallaw.org/presentation.htm ).

4) Moore did not place it there simply as artwork or legal-symbolism (like Moses in the SCOTUS building), but with the express purpose of promoting a particular religion. In fact, his STATED purpose of placing the monument was to fulfill a campaign promise to command what he saw as good: to submit state law to HIS religion's laws (again, see the dedication of his speech noted above in 3). Such an act does rise to the definition of "respecting an establishment of religion."

He was an agent of the state commanding what he saw as good about religion